FAIRNESS, NOT JUST SPEED

Contact Counsellor

CategoryPolity

Last Updated04/12/2024

Shailaja Chandra’s article, ‘Leaner, Faster, Fairer,’ explores the reasons behind the growing backlog of cases in Indian courts and suggests solutions, such as measuring judges' performance by their case disposal rate and recruiting retired officials. While these recommendations aim to enhance efficiency, a deeper look at the judicial system's complexities reveals that fairness must also be prioritized alongside speed.

In our project on the pendency of undertrials, we focused on speeding up case disposal. However, after extensive discussions with various stakeholders, we recognized that ensuring a fair trial is just as important as expediting the process. Speeding up the disposal of cases without proper consideration could undermine the fairness of the process.
Categorizing judges based solely on case disposal rates might encourage them to prioritize easier, faster cases, potentially neglecting sensitive matters that require more time. Such hasty judgments could result in appeals, further contributing to the judicial backlog.

The article notes that in district or subordinate courts, approximately half of the 90 cases listed daily are adjourned. While this may seem inefficient, frequent adjournments often reflect the need for additional time to gather evidence, research law, or wait for critical events.
Advocates argue that denying adjournments in these circumstances could result in unfair trials. The question, therefore, is whether a permissible limit for adjournments can be justified, considering the underlying need or thorough preparation in complex cases.

The judicial system’s delays cannot be addressed merely by tweaking administrative procedures or delegating tasks to retired officials. These solutions fail to tackle the root causes — the structural issues inherent in the system. Each case passes through multiple stages — from charge filing to judgment — and each stage has distinct causes of delay.
For example, delays in investigation, issuing summons by police and public prosecutors, and misplaced case files all contribute to the overall backlog. Identifying critical stages where delays occur and addressing these bottlenecks directly is essential for improving efficiency.

While video conferencing has been promoted as a solution to reduce case backlogs, it raises concerns, especially for undertrials. During video hearings, the accused are often surrounded by jail officers, which can create an intimidating environment. Moreover, mistreatment or torture in jail may go unnoticed, as judges cannot assess the physical condition of the accused clearly.
The physical presence of an accused in court offers them a chance to meet family, speak confidentially with their lawyers, and experience the trial in a less restrictive environment. Video conferencing trials take away these critical rights, potentially infringing upon the fairness of the trial.

Access to prompt legal advice and support is crucial for ensuring a fair trial. However, research from National Law University Delhi’s Project 39A highlights that undertrials from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds often lack access to quality legal assistance due to unawareness and the inadequacies of the legal aid system. Strengthening the legal aid system by allocating more resources is essential to make the judicial system both efficient and just.

While the push for faster case disposal is important, the judicial system must prioritize fairness to uphold the rule of law. Solutions like performance metrics for judges and video conferencing must be approached with caution, ensuring they do not compromise the rights of individuals. A more holistic approach is needed, focusing on addressing structural issues, improving legal aid, and ensuring that justice is delivered fairly and efficiently.